can anybody comment onand debate me on the info that I show to the group here,,,or,,,is this too advanced for this crowd

I cant believe that evolutionists have no defencefor these points that I make hereis this truly the destruction of the evolution fairy talemaybe you should call in some of the big gunsand have them try to answer to my arguments

<<<<< the words that have stumped the evolutionists >>>>>

I have a way of destroying evolution

Ok, lets do this systematic- Where everything is logged and categorized-- Following the whole evolutionary trail--- Of what it is based on---- Why + how they came up with this theory----- To show the population just what they say they are in on------ To see if they will choose to stay believing------- This total farce-------- Concocted by only a few--------- To fool the masses

It was because of fossils that the first evolutionist came into being- It is fossils that is their evidence of evolution-- It supposedly PROVES evolution is a reality--- That is,,, if you believe how they were all formed---- Over billions and billions of years----- Instead of one humongous flood------ Like the Geneses description------- of the Bible

You see, It must be billions and billions of years- To give enough time for countless microscopic changes to take place-- For people to be able to even consider this ridiculous solution--- Of a "simple" bacteria being able to---- Change into man- But,,, it was only about 6 000 years-- And all the many layers were laid down by the floor of Geneses--- In a very short time = forty days and forty nights---- And we can prove this very easily and very quickly----- It is just that,,, they do not want to prove it------ Because they do not want there to be a real God------- That sees all + knows all-------- To judge them for their deeds in the end- This can be easily proved-- Because if fossils happened the way that they have devised--- Then there would be a layer depth change (small or large)---- In the spot where the fossil was found----- To represent the local flood or avalanche deposits------ But there are no depth change in the area------- as it is the same depth as everywhere else-------- because all fossils were formed at one particular time during the flood--------- And they will just ignore this discrepancy---------- For there own gain----------- So they hide this- Why do they let this false fabrication stand-- And want our children taught this hidden humanist religious doctrine--- Because most of them don't know any better---- And think they let this "one" discrepancy pass----- Not knowing of the deep goings on of the deception------ That Satan has pulled over on us------- That destroys our children-------- Keeping them from knowing--------- our God + Saviour---------- and getting the chance to get into heaven- it could be soooooooooooo simple to prove wrong-- by making sure there is a measurable depth difference--- at any of the fossil sites---- if not only in one site----- I bet that they cannot show a difference in depth------ In any fossil dig sites------- they are all the same depth, in all areas-------- because the fossils were not laid down---------- as a result of a local flood or avalanche----------- but they were all laid down at the same time------------- in the Geneses flood

I would have to say,-- that I may have just screamed out a loud alarm call---- To this whole godless world------ that we have all had the wool pulled over our eyes-------- by a very few religious humanists---------- with the very tall fairy tale called evolution

------------------------------------------------I don't know why we insult God + even our own intelligence- Nor why we allow our governments to teach this junk to our children--- And not only do they teach it as the only theory to how His-tory began----- But they even talk about it as law------- Calling it as undisputable--------- Denying the whole religious part to it----------- trying to show it as fact

we are trying to fool ourselves, (and our upcoming children)-- into believing this crazy theory---- that we came from the dust of the earth------ (without the Hand of God forming us)-------- starting out as bacteria and then the result of billions of genetic mistakes---------- becoming a man

Ok, do you even know how complex our genetic makeup is?-- There is enough complexity in the simplest cell in our body---- (as in, there are enough letters in the genetic code)------ here is a quote from the:-------- Center for Scientific Creation

"there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store theEncyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over"

NOW,,, how can any sane person, reasonably think that- all of this just simply fell into place-- billions + billions of little mistakes--- that all turned out to be for the better---- THEN,,, no one can explain where all of these innumerable atoms came from- they are what everything is made of-- yet they are too small to see or even measure--- we are still not sure of how they are made---- let alone, be able to make one ourselves· notice I say "made", as in formed-- as in, purposely created--- because of their amazing complexity---- it seems ridiculous to believe they all came from a great explosion- we only know that they hold massive amounts of energy in them-- we found this out by crudely breaking one--- which took the smartest minds on the planet· to smash only a few them-- creating sooo much crude explosive power--- that they even worried about igniting the upper atmosphere- we also know that all matter,(atoms) has a limited life expectancy-- as it can only exist for a limited time--- and all of everything will eventually disintegrate· running out of energy-- complex forms of energy---- will eventually dissolve into chaos

HOW CAN WE LET THESE HUMANISTS=(A RELIGEON) DECIEVE OUR CHILDREN

I believe that God has given me great wisdom,along with the willingness and ability to be taught all things,I believe that He has given me the ability to explainHe shows me how to score off the charts in most all IQ tests,That should get them to stand up and take notice,I think that God would show me how to surpass all IQ ratingsand even look into all of societies paper walls,pointing out to me the flaws in their armour,

Then there is matter,,,What everything is made up of,If it is extremely rare, and against all odds,To have a planet be the right size = mass,And the exact right distance from the sun,To be in a regular stable orbit,

Then think of all the atoms in the universe,Which all have multiple electrons,All of which are in perfect orbits,What kind of explosion,Formed these complex atoms,And how long will they continue to exist,

can anybody comment onand debate me on the info that I show to the group here,,,or,,,is this too advanced for this crowd

Well we'll see.

I cant believe that evolutionists have no defencefor these points that I make hereis this truly the destruction of the evolution fairy talemaybe you should call in some of the big gunsand have them try to answer to my arguments

I'm no "big gun", but I shall certainly have a try.

<<<<< the words that have stumped the evolutionists >>>>>

I have a way of destroying evolution

Well, you haven't presented an argument yet, you have only flexed ya muscles

Ok, lets do this systematic- Where everything is logged and categorized-- Following the whole evolutionary trail--- Of what it is based on---- Why + how they came up with this theory----- To show the population just what they say they are in on------ To see if they will choose to stay believing------- This total farce-------- Concocted by only a few--------- To fool the masses

Well, the theory of evolution was fairly well known before Darwins time, in fact, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote about evolution. The problem was, there was no mechanism to drive evolution. All Darwin did was provide that mechanism, Natural Selection. The rest of this argument is just emotional so I won't comment.

It was because of fossils that the first evolutionist came into being- It is fossils that is their evidence of evolution-- It supposedly PROVES evolution is a reality--- That is,,, if you believe how they were all formed---- Over billions and billions of years----- Instead of one humongous flood------ Like the Geneses description------- of the Bible

First off, it's Genesis. NOT Geneses, just in case that wasn't a typo. Secondly, Evolution, well the theory of, came about because of Phylogeny, not the fossil record. Fossils are nice, we like them because they give us snap shots of the past, but even if we had NO fossils whatsoever, we could still show beyong a shadow of a doubt, that evolution had occured. Through DNA, Phylogenetics, Embryology, Developmental Evolutionary Biology, Genetic similarities and not to mention actually watching evolution take place, like we have done with Bacteria many times over. Not to mention dogs evolving from one pack of grey wolves and pigeons, these are just a couple of examples, there are many.

You see, It must be billions and billions of years- To give enough time for countless microscopic changes to take place-- For people to be able to even consider this ridiculous solution--- Of a "simple" bacteria being able to---- Change into man- But,,, it was only about 6 000 years-- And all the many layers were laid down by the floor of Geneses--- In a very short time = forty days and forty nights---- And we can prove this very easily and very quickly----- It is just that,,, they do not want to prove it------ Because they do not want there to be a real God

The Earth is certainly not 6000 years old. Even dendrochronology shows us it is AT LEAST 12,000 years old. Cosmology, and radiometric dating tells us the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old. The Universe is 13.72 Billion years old.

--- That sees all + knows all-------- To judge them for their deeds in the end- This can be easily proved

Okay, prove it.

Because if fossils happened the way that they have devised--- Then there would be a layer depth change (small or large)---- In the spot where the fossil was found----- To represent the local flood or avalanche deposits------ But there are no depth change in the area------- as it is the same depth as everywhere else-------- because all fossils were formed at one particular time during the flood--------- And they will just ignore this discrepancy---------- For there own gain----------- So they hide this

Ok, find me a Rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian and we'll talk. Again, I won't answer your emotional claims because I find them irrelevant

- Why do they let this false fabrication stand-- And want our children taught this hidden humanist religious doctrine--- Because most of them don't know any better---- And think they let this "one" discrepancy pass----- Not knowing of the deep goings on of the deception------ That Satan has pulled over on us------- That destroys our children-------- Keeping them from knowing--------- our God + Saviour---------- and getting the chance to get into heaven

Humanism isn't a religion, in the way that it makes no claims about the Supernatural. And Humanism also has nothing to do with Evolution, which is the back bone of Modern Biology.

- it could be soooooooooooo simple to prove wrong-- by making sure there is a measurable depth difference--- at any of the fossil sites---- if not only in one site----- I bet that they cannot show a difference in depth------ In any fossil dig sites------- they are all the same depth, in all areas-------- because the fossils were not laid down---------- as a result of a local flood or avalanche----------- but they were all laid down at the same time------------- in the Geneses flood

A lot of emotional claims for a post that is supposedly about science. Anyway, if you can disprove all the overlapping areas of Science then you would win the Nobel Prize and be haled as a genius, when you're ready.

would have to say,-- that I may have just screamed out a loud alarm call---- To this whole godless world------ that we have all had the wool pulled over our eyes-------- by a very few religious humanists---------- with the very tall fairy tale called evolution

Once again, Humanism isn't a religion and it has nothing to do with the fact of Evolution. Please understand that.

Well, so far, you haven't made ONE clear scientific argument. Hopefully the second half will be better.

------------------------------------------------I don't know why we insult God + even our own intelligence- Nor why we allow our governments to teach this junk to our children--- And not only do they teach it as the only theory to how His-tory began----- But they even talk about it as law------- Calling it as undisputable--------- Denying the whole religious part to it----------- trying to show it as fact

Nope, clearly not, more emotional nonsense.

we are trying to fool ourselves, (and our upcoming children)-- into believing this crazy theory---- that we came from the dust of the earth------ (without the Hand of God forming us)-------- starting out as bacteria and then the result of billions of genetic mistakes---------- becoming a man

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins, you are talking about Abiogenisis which you are correct, has no solid theory yet. Evolution however, explains the diversity of life on Earth, which is a solid and proven theory.

Ok, do you even know how complex our genetic makeup is?-- There is enough complexity in the simplest cell in our body---- (as in, there are enough letters in the genetic code)------ here is a quote from the:-------- Center for Scientific Creation

"there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store theEncyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over"

The first correct statement so far, well done, although it was a quote.

NOW,,, how can any sane person, reasonably think that- all of this just simply fell into place-- billions + billions of little mistakes

Sorry? By mistake, I'm afraid you're making up your own science now. Evolution and the process of natural selection is anything but "mistakes", it's about survival, which trates survive and which ones don't. I suggest you read about evolution before you set out to "disprove" it.

--- that all turned out to be for the better---- THEN,,, no one can explain where all of these innumerable atoms came from- they are what everything is made of

Well, the elements that make up me and you were formed in stars, and also, very possibly, the atoms that are in your left hand were formed in a different star to the atoms in your right hand. Cool huh?

yet they are too small to see or even measure--- we are still not sure of how they are made---- let alone, be able to make one ourselves· notice I say "made", as in formed-- as in, purposely created--- because of their amazing complexity---- it seems ridiculous to believe they all came from a great explosion- we only know that they hold massive amounts of energy in them-- we found this out by crudely breaking one--- which took the smartest minds on the planet· to smash only a few them-- creating sooo much crude explosive power--- that they even worried about igniting the upper atmosphere- we also know that all matter,(atoms) has a limited life expectancy-- as it can only exist for a limited time--- and all of everything will eventually disintegrate· running out of energy-- complex forms of energy---- will eventually dissolve into chaos

Sorry, is this still evolution? You seem to have gone a bit off track. Anyway. We have a very good understanding of the make up of Atoms, it's not perfect, of course not, the technology is only just beginning to catch up with the mathematics. We're incredibly close to finding out if the Higgs Boson is an actual particle, if it is, that explains where atoms get the mass. Amazing eh?

HOW CAN WE LET THESE HUMANISTS=(A RELIGEON) DECIEVE OUR CHILDREN

Sorry, weren't you debunking evolution?

I believe that God has given me great wisdom,Well, he certainly didn't give you wisdom about evolution.

along with the willingness and ability to be taught all things,

Again, clearly not the ability to learn about evolution.

I believe that He has given me the ability to explainHe shows me how to score off the charts in most all IQ tests,

I find this pretty hard to believe, but please, do go on.

That should get them to stand up and take notice,I think that God would show me how to surpass all IQ ratingsand even look into all of societies paper walls,pointing out to me the flaws in their armour,

I think you've only mentioned evolution once by the way, and that was right at the start. Anything else you have to say on the topic?

Then there is matter,,,What everything is made up of,If it is extremely rare, and against all odds,

In a Universe this big, the odds match up.

To have a planet be the right size = mass,

I'm pretty sure it could be a bit bigger or smaller.

And the exact right distance from the sun,

We could actually survive 10,000 Km closer or further away from the Sun.

To be in a regular stable orbit,

That's gravity for ya.

Then think of all the atoms in the universe,Which all have multiple electrons,All of which are in perfect orbits,

That's not how electrons act, they don't orbit. They act according the laws of Quantum Mechanics, which I am sure you are very familiar with.

What kind of explosion,Formed these complex atoms,

A big one, although the big bang didn't create these atoms, the atoms were part of the big bang. It's like saying "shards of dynamite were created in the explosion"

And how long will they continue to exist,

The atoms will never cease to exist. What will happen to life? Well, all life in our Solar System will certainly end in 5 billion years time when the Sun implodes, that's if the Andromeda Galaxy hasn't collided with our Milky Way by then.

So, in short, you have said absolutely NOTHING about evolution, at all, apart from one sentence, and even that was more to do with Palaeontology.

Care for another try? Make sure you stay on topic though this time and try not to argue from emotions

1. First off, it's Genesis. NOT Geneses, just in case that wasn't a typo. Secondly, Evolution, well the theory of, came about because of Phylogeny, not the fossil record. Fossils are nice, we like them because they give us snap shots of the past, but even if we had NO fossils whatsoever, we could still show beyong a shadow of a doubt, that evolution had occured. Through DNA, Phylogenetics, Embryology, Developmental Evolutionary Biology, Genetic similarities and not to mention actually watching evolution take place, like we have done with Bacteria many times over. Not to mention dogs evolving from one pack of grey wolves and pigeons, these are just a couple of examples, there are many.

2. Humanism isn't a religion, in the way that it makes no claims about the Supernatural. And Humanism also has nothing to do with Evolution, which is the back bone of Modern Biology.

3. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins, you are talking about Abiogenisis which you are correct, has no solid theory yet. Evolution however, explains the diversity of life on Earth, which is a solid and proven theory.

4. Sorry? By mistake, I'm afraid you're making up your own science now. Evolution and the process of natural selection is anything but "mistakes", it's about survival, which trates survive and which ones don't. I suggest you read about evolution before you set out to "disprove" it.

1. Firstly, you do realise that the "evidence" you have claimed are all based on the assumption that evolution is true...

Phylogenetics: Just because things are similar doesn't constitute that they evolved.. You are assuming evolution caused these similarities yet such an assumption cannot be verified empirically (scientifically).

Genetic similarities / DNA: (No need to claim the same thing twice). Again common sequences will be conserved since common cellular pathways are used. Such is also evidence of a common designer since a common design is used. Thus this evidence is based on what worldview you wish to take, hence the "evidence" is moot since it swings both ways.

Embryology: The link of evolution here has been verified as false. Haeckel's pictures are frauds as such this "evidence" is not evidence.

Developmental Biology: I assume you mean Embryology here, no need to claim the same thing twice.

Evolution has not been observed ever! We have observed variation WITHIN a species however such changes are not those that will cause a species to become a new species... How does changing the % of a population to be a different colour change that population to another type of organism.... It doesn't hence variation within a species is not indicative of evolution to become a new species.

Even sport can become a Religion to some... and sport make no claims about the supernatural.

3. Firstly evolution is not even a theory. In order for a hypothesis to progress in the scientific method there needs to be empirical testing. Has there been empirical testing to verify that one organism can change into a totally different one?

What is claimed here is where did evolution start? Where did the first DNA come from since without DNA there is no evolution hence how can evolution be "solid" when its foundations are based on an unknown... Seems a bit stupid hey

4. Folks the claim before was that somehow millions of mistakes caused things to get better...

Well, what would you claim a mutation as... Genetically it IS classed as a mistake. Consider every single genetic disease or disorder, all these come from mutations. Hence it is logical to equate mutation as a mistake, (plus that is what they are defined as anyway, well in my genetics lectures anyway).

Here is a question if natural selection were eradicating these mistakes then why is it that these genetic diseases persist in a population? Surely if natural selection was as powerful as evolutionist claim then all genetic diseases should have been selected out. This doesn't just apply to humans, but to all animals and plants... The fact that these genetic diseases persist are real-world evidence that "natural selection" is not a very strong selecting force.

1. Firstly, you do realise that the "evidence" you have claimed are all based on the assumption that evolution is true...

Not at all, the first body of evidence (on the origin of species) was originally collected to prove creation. Darwin was a big fan of Paley. Also the original geologists went to prove the flood, again, they came back with evidence to the contrary.

Phylogenetics: Just because things are similar doesn't constitute that they evolved.. You are assuming evolution caused these similarities yet such an assumption cannot be verified empirically (scientifically).

I think we can. If we show that primates are exactly as distinct from snakes (genetically speaking) wouldn't that show we shared an ancestor and all split at the same time? Hey presto, that is what we find.

Genetic similarities / DNA: (No need to claim the same thing twice). Again common sequences will be conserved since common cellular pathways are used. Such is also evidence of a common designer since a common design is used. Thus this evidence is based on what worldview you wish to take, hence the "evidence" is moot since it swings both ways.

Please explain junk DNA.

Embryology: The link of evolution here has been verified as false. Haeckel's pictures are frauds as such this "evidence" is not evidence.

Nope, Haekel's pictures have been debunked, and they were in 1866, and he was trying to merge Lamarkism with Darwinism....so really, it was bound to fail.

Evolution has not been observed ever! We have observed variation WITHIN a species however such changes are not those that will cause a species to become a new species... How does changing the % of a population to be a different colour change that population to another type of organism.... It doesn't hence variation within a species is not indicative of evolution to become a new species.

Even sport can become a Religion to some... and sport make no claims about the supernatural.

I'm not going to take the religion of sport seriously, are you?

3. Firstly evolution is not even a theory. In order for a hypothesis to progress in the scientific method there needs to be empirical testing. Has there been empirical testing to verify that one organism can change into a totally different one?

Germ Theory? Doesn't that make predictions based on evolution? If it doesn't, then the next time you get a flu jab, be sure to ask for one from 50 years ago.

What is claimed here is where did evolution start? Where did the first DNA come from since without DNA there is no evolution hence how can evolution be "solid" when its foundations are based on an unknown... Seems a bit stupid hey

Nope, not at all, can we not conduct particle physics without knowing how the first particles were formed? We don't know everything, that's obviously true, but to say because we don't know everything we don't know anything is just plain wrong.

4. Folks the claim before was that somehow millions of mistakes caused things to get better...

Not somehow, by natural selection. And you're forgetting about all the mistakes that didn't "cause things to get better" like the 99% of species that have ever lived, to become extinct.

Well, what would you claim a mutation as... Genetically it IS classed as a mistake. Consider every single genetic disease or disorder, all these come from mutations. Hence it is logical to equate mutation as a mistake, (plus that is what they are defined as anyway, well in my genetics lectures anyway).

Firstly, it's random mutation. Secondly, I don't believe he was referring explicitly to genetics, I think he was talking in general. Thirdly, genetic disease is EXACTLY in line with random mutation, like I said, not every line makes it, in fact, most don't. But it's the traits that do offer a survival advantage that natural selection preserves.

Here is a question if natural selection were eradicating these mistakes then why is it that these genetic diseases persist in a population? Surely if natural selection was as powerful as evolutionist claim then all genetic diseases should have been selected out. This doesn't just apply to humans, but to all animals and plants... The fact that these genetic diseases persist are real-world evidence that "natural selection" is not a very strong selecting force.

Like I said, not all genetic mutations offer a survival advantage, this is understood and expected in Evolutionary theory. If they didn't happen, we'd be in trouble.

Please to explain why an intelligent designer would create organisms that are doomed from birth, i.e. inherited disease

1. Firstly, you do realise that the "evidence" you have claimed are all based on the assumption that evolution is true...Not at all, the first body of evidence (on the origin of species) was originally collected to prove creation. Darwin was a big fan of Paley. Also the original geologists went to prove the flood, again, they came back with evidence to the contrary.Actually, you are incorrect. This so-called “Body” of evidence is not applicable to macroevolution, as there is absolutely NO empirical evidence for macroevolution. The only “Body” of evidence there is, supports adaptation. Evolutionists renamed adaptation in order to support their hypothesis that microevolution + millions (or billions) of years = macroevolution; and this hypothesis is totally presupposed.

Evolution has not been observed ever! We have observed variation WITHIN a species however such changes are not those that will cause a species to become a new species... How does changing the % of a population to be a different colour change that population to another type of organism.... It doesn't hence variation within a species is not indicative of evolution to become a new species.

2. Psychologists disagree with youhttp://www.psycholog...-sport-religionEven sport can become a Religion to some... and sport make no claims about the supernatural.I'm not going to take the religion of sport seriously, are you?Not about sports, no. But atheism, on the other hand, definitely makes claims about the supernatural; as do atheistic evolutionists. Atheists take macroevolution very seriously, and without a modicum of empirical scientific evidence. It is totally faith based as a presupposed hope/prayer to the future (Ad Futuris). And whenever you attempt to claim a hypothesis as a fact, then attempt to dogmatically defend it as a fact, with zeal and fervor, you are acting overtly religious.

3. Firstly evolution is not even a theory. In order for a hypothesis to progress in the scientific method there needs to be empirical testing. Has there been empirical testing to verify that one organism can change into a totally different one?Germ Theory? Doesn't that make predictions based on evolution? If it doesn't, then the next time you get a flu jab, be sure to ask for one from 50 years ago.No, predictions for germ theory are made by scientists based upon the empirical scientific method. Evolution is simply a word that evolutionists have replaced for adaptation. And many predictions made within hypotheses for germ theory have failed miserably, while others were validated as true. It is a trial and error process (just as any other hypothesis in science proceeds). Further, these experiments are “DESIGNED” they don’t “EVOLVE”.

So, when I get a flu inoculation, I am assured that the “DESIGNED” experiments that made it possible are of the latest findings.

What is claimed here is where did evolution start? Where did the first DNA come from since without DNA there is no evolution hence how can evolution be "solid" when its foundations are based on an unknown... Seems a bit stupid hey Nope, not at all, can we not conduct particle physics without knowing how the first particles were formed? We don't know everything, that's obviously true, but to say because we don't know everything we don't know anything is just plain wrong.The above is a false analogy. At no time did anyone claim that “we can know everything”. We can definitely PROCEED sans origins knowledge, but we cannot deny that origins are every bit as important as every other step in the sciences.

The problem the atheist has, is that they have absolutely NO foundational evidence for materialistic atheism, or materialistic evolutionism in origins (the universe, life, intelligence). So, they attempt to deny that it is even important to the dialogue, even though it is in everything that we study. For example; like a little factory assembly line, the cell takes the information contained in DNA, and re-routes it to the part of the body it is needed. The materialistic atheistic evolutionist attempts to assert that this somehow macro-evolved. But they proceed so without ANY empirical scientific evidence! So the begged question becomes; We know (somewhat) how this happens, but from where did it come? The materialistic atheistic evolutionist will say “we don’t need to know that”, we simply know “it just is”…

4. Folks the claim before was that somehow millions of mistakes caused things to get better...Not somehow, by natural selection. And you're forgetting about all the mistakes that didn't "cause things to get better" like the 99% of species that have ever lived, to become extinct.Who or what does this “selecting”?

Please to explain why an intelligent designer would create organisms that are doomed from birth, i.e. inherited diseaseThe Intelligent Designer didn’t “create organisms that are doomed from birth”, man became “doomed” by his by the cause of his own hand. (see - the “Principle of Causality” or Cause and Effect).

The bigger question for the materialistic atheist is "From what did evolution evolve?" or “From where did all of this come?”

Now the materialistic atheist wants to use ONLY materialistic answers, so answer the question form ONLY materialistic/naturalistic evidence.

**POST EDITED FOR ERRONIOUS AND MISLEADING CONTENT**If you are going to answer or rebut any posts, you need to do so from an honest and factual standpoint OR admit it is simply presupposed.

Your first reaction to this edit is to read the forum rules, then come back and make an informed and responsible reply/rebuttal. Any other “Misleading” statements, “Equivocations”, “Trolling” type responses (i.e. for nothing more than to cause a spectacle) will result in a permanent ban.

1. I think we can. If we show that primates are exactly as distinct from snakes (genetically speaking) wouldn't that show we shared an ancestor and all split at the same time? Hey presto, that is what we find.

2. Please explain junk DNA.

3. Nope, Haekel's pictures have been debunked, and they were in 1866, and he was trying to merge Lamarkism with Darwinism....so really, it was bound to fail.

6. Germ Theory? Doesn't that make predictions based on evolution? If it doesn't, then the next time you get a flu jab, be sure to ask for one from 50 years ago.

7. Nope, not at all, can we not conduct particle physics without knowing how the first particles were formed? We don't know everything, that's obviously true, but to say because we don't know everything we don't know anything is just plain wrong.

8. Firstly, it's random mutation. Secondly, I don't believe he was referring explicitly to genetics, I think he was talking in general. Thirdly, genetic disease is EXACTLY in line with random mutation, like I said, not every line makes it, in fact, most don't. But it's the traits that do offer a survival advantage that natural selection preserves.

9. Like I said, not all genetic mutations offer a survival advantage, this is understood and expected in Evolutionary theory. If they didn't happen, we'd be in trouble.

10. Please to explain why an intelligent designer would create organisms that are doomed from birth, i.e. inherited disease

Thanks

1. How does that prove evolution? It does nothing to show the mechanism of how these observations came to be... Observing phenomena doesn't explain the phenomena. As I said you need empirical testing.

2. You do realise that "junk" DNA is OLD OLD OLD... I've recently had a lecture where our "junk" DNA codes for regulatory RNA which assists in the maintenance and expression of DNA in the cell.... Junk indeed.

This has been known for a few years now so I suggest you do a bit of research.

3. And that saves Embryology how? You've given no evidence for this line of "evidence" so I'd ask how does this advocate evolution?

4. As Ron said. Variation does occur, I do not doubt that. Now whether eating nylon allows for the cell to evolve into a fish... THAT is another matter.

5. I don't but some do.. People in Italy DIE from watching the soccer 24/7 via sleep deprivation. Thats pious for you.

6. Absolutely not. Germ theory is the theory that bacteria are the cause of disease. This is empirically demonstrated using Koch's postulates... This has nothing to do with evolution. Attempting to mince disciplines of actual science, with evolution will fail miserably.

7. As Ron said, its a false analogy.

8. Random mutations occur in genetics... So your claims of "not knowing" are unfounded as is your attempt to equivocate the issue. I didn't say that genetic diseases wasn't inline with random mutation... YOU did by claiming mutations are not mistakes, when in fact they are deemed mistakes or errors in the DNA code.

9. You haven't addressed the issue, skirting around the issue is disingenuous. If natural selection selects against the bad mutations then why do genetic diseases persist? This is observable evidence against "natural selections" selecting capabilities.

10. How would anyone know what an intelligent designer thinks... Hence your question is an attempt at a red herring and thus is not worth answering, (until you genuinely answer the issue in point 9 you skirted around)

1. How does that prove evolution? It does nothing to show the mechanism of how these observations came to be... Observing phenomena doesn't explain the phenomena. As I said you need empirical testing.

It was a prediction. The test was that if we had all evolved sharing a common ancestor, reptiles (snakes for example) would share the same common ancestor as all Primates as we would have split at the same time. What predictions has the ID theory made?

2. You do realise that "junk" DNA is OLD OLD OLD... I've recently had a lecture where our "junk" DNA codes for regulatory RNA which assists in the maintenance and expression of DNA in the cell.... Junk indeed.

This has been known for a few years now so I suggest you do a bit of research.

Nope, some of the non-coding DNA has a function as you pointed out, you just missed the bit about MOST of the non-coding DNA having absolutely NO biological function what so ever. I suggest you also do the research without stopping after the first sentence.

3. And that saves Embryology how? You've given no evidence for this line of "evidence" so I'd ask how does this advocate evolution?

Because Embryolgy is not based on Haekel's drawings. His theory was recapitulation which has been disproven by modern Biology. Embryology is about the split between the entire animal kingdom and how they develop as an early embryo.

*****************************************************************************************************************************POST EDITED FOR ERRONIOUS AND MISLEADING CONTENT**If you are going to answer or rebut any posts, you need to do so from an honest and factual standpoint OR admit it is simply presupposed.

Your first reaction to this edit is to read the forum rules, then come back and make an informed and responsible reply/rebuttal. Any other “Misleading” statements, “Equivocations”, “Trolling” type responses (i.e. for nothing more than to cause a spectacle) will result in a permanent ban. ***************************************************************************************************************************

5. I don't but some do.. People in Italy DIE from watching the soccer 24/7 via sleep deprivation. Thats pious for you.

People are weird

6. Absolutely not. Germ theory is the theory that bacteria are the cause of disease. This is empirically demonstrated using Koch's postulates... This has nothing to do with evolution. Attempting to mince disciplines of actual science, with evolution will fail miserably.

How we apply it through medicine however, is completely reliant on Evolution. We cannot give diseases such as cancer to humans, but we can give cancer to mice and then attempt to cure it. If we do cure it, we need to know our relation to mice in order to interpret that cure.

Please explain why you think it is based on your statement that without understanding one area of science, we can not hope to understand another.

8. Random mutations occur in genetics... So your claims of "not knowing" are unfounded as is your attempt to equivocate the issue. I didn't say that genetic diseases wasn't inline with random mutation... YOU did by claiming mutations are not mistakes, when in fact they are deemed mistakes or errors in the DNA code.

I never claimed they weren't mistakes, I said that I was answering a more broad question that included natural selection, which isn't a mistake. Please don't strawman me when I explained what I meant.

9. You haven't addressed the issue, skirting around the issue is disingenuous. If natural selection selects against the bad mutations then why do genetic diseases persist? This is observable evidence against "natural selections" selecting capabilities.

Mutations need to happen in order for natural selection to act upon. Sometimes they aren't expressed in the carrier but can be passed on and expressed in the offspring. Natural selection doesn't act on the carrier, it only acts on the offspring, and again not every single offspring. I mean at the moment I am explaing heredity, do you really need to explain heredity and how dominant and recessive genes work? I will if you want, but I think you know why genetic diseases persist.

10. How would anyone know what an intelligent designer thinks... Hence your question is an attempt at a red herring and thus is not worth answering, (until you genuinely answer the issue in point 9 you skirted around)

Up to you if you want to answer it, my question still stands, if you say genetic disease is a failure of natural selection, then I say it is a failure of a designer.

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:00 AM

then I say it is a failure of a designer.

And you would be wrong. The Christian truth is that God, the designer, made man perfect. It was man's sin that introduced death and destruction into the world. The failure is man's responsibility.

But atheists will never acknowledge this nor will they ever try to see it from this perspective. They know this is the Christian perspective, yet they always, 100% of the time, blame God (the one they say doesn't exist) for disease instead of man. Because if the atheist blames man, the atheist understands that he too is responsible. And the atheist, with all of his pride, cannot ever admit that he is part of the problem.

That's the Christian perspective. I don't expect you to agree. In fact I'm sure you won't. But when I see atheists blaming God for the way things are in the world (death and destruction) I'm going to set the record straight whether they want to hear it or not. And then not argue with them, because arguing with an atheist about the things of God is a lesson in futility.

**POST EDITED FOR ERRONIOUS AND MISLEADING CONTENT**If you are going to answer or rebut any posts, you need to do so from an honest and factual standpoint OR admit it is simply presupposed.

Your first reaction to this edit is to read the forum rules, then come back and make an informed and responsible reply/rebuttal. Any other “Misleading” statements, “Equivocations”, “Trolling” type responses (i.e. for nothing more than to cause a spectacle) will result in a permanent ban.

That's the Christian perspective. I don't expect you to agree. In fact I'm sure you won't. But when I see atheists blaming God for the way things are in the world (death and destruction) I'm going to set the record straight whether they want to hear it or not. And then not argue with them, because arguing with an atheist about the things of God is a lesson in futility.

I'm always happy to hear peoples perspectives, the problem is that many religious people have a completely different interpretation as to what god is, what god can do, and what god intends. From an atheists point of view, each discussion is completely different, so by stating your guess and leaving, you only add to that problem as you don't explain yourself further.

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:45 AM

I'll respond because you are asking genuine questions, not being argumentative. Remember, what I say here is Christian truth, and if you dispute it, you are not disputing me per se, you are disputing the teachings in God's word, the Holy Bible.

What was that sin again? Eating an apple? Seems a bit harsh to blame the entire human race, both present and future because some chick got a bit peckish and then put some clothes on.

The actual sin committed was the breaking of God's commandment. All of man has free will and all of man has the capacity to, and does, commit sin. Therefore the entire human race deserves to be "blamed" for sinning.

The point is that if god is all powerful and all loving, he doesn't need to blame humanity by sentencing many people to death, can't he just forgive people? And wouldn't he want to just forgive peiople, you know, being all loving on that.

God DID forgive people. God provided a FREE GIFT in the form of Jesus Christ. Anyone who accepts Jesus is forgiven. But it's selfish pride that won't allow everyone to do so. To accept a savior one must first realize they need saving. Pride is what clouds this realization.

I'm always happy to hear peoples perspectives, the problem is that many religious people have a completely different interpretation as to what god is, what god can do, and what god intends. From an atheists point of view, each discussion is completely different, so by stating your guess and leaving, you only add to that problem as you don't explain yourself further.

Fair enough. I'm explaining now. I just needed to put you on notice that what I say is Christian truth, and it's futile for me to argue with you. If you want to learn, you must accept what I have to say. Arguing is not learning. If I tell you anything that is not true, my brothers and sisters in Christ on this forum will correct me, rest assured.

Microevolution and Macroevolution aren't really a term biologists use, the reason for this is that is the same thing, it's just a question of degrees, as in the degree of difference between two organisms.

If you want people to reply I suggest you try and stick to one or two topics per thread... (Make multiple threads if needed ) Since attempting to answer a question like this is a mammoth task and most people don't want to spend 4 hours writing (I don't believe in evolution by the way )

sorry, but that is a big part of my argument,,,that there are soooo many holes in this ridiculous theory,,,with the chinks in their armor,it is like a they are wearing a screen door

45]can anybody comment onand debate me on the info that I show to the group here,,,or,,,is this too advanced for this crowd

Well we'll see.

I cant believe that evolutionists have no defencefor these points that I make hereis this truly the destruction of the evolution fairy talemaybe you should call in some of the big gunsand have them try to answer to my arguments

I'm no "big gun", but I shall certainly have a try.JOE= thanks for writing me back, it’s apreciated

45]JOE= sorry for the length of this

45]<<<<< the words that have stumped the evolutionists >>>>>

I have a way of destroying evolution

Well, you haven't presented an argument yet, you have only flexed ya musclesJOE= yes ,,,,lol

45]Ok, lets do this systematic- Where everything is logged and categorized-- Following the whole evolutionary trail--- Of what it is based on---- Why + how they came up with this theory----- To show the population just what they say they are in on------ To see if they will choose to stay believing------- This total farce-------- Concocted by only a few--------- To fool the masses

Well, the theory of evolution was fairly well known before Darwins time, in fact, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote about evolution.

45]JOE= yes, I think man was coming up with some excuses

45]JOE= right from the very bigining,,,

45]JOE=,trying to side step the Authority of God

45]JOE= not wanting to admit that there was Someone watching

45]JOE= over everyone, seeing everything, that was going to

45]JOE= hold them accountable in the end

45]JOE= now do you see why man has always been hoping that

45]JOE= there was no one to answer to

45]JOE= for all of the bad deeds that they have committed

45]The problem was, there was no mechanism to drive evolution. All Darwin did was provide that mechanism, Natural Selection.

45]JOE= so,,, as soon as someone came up with a somewhat

45]JOE= believable concoction,,, all the rest of you hopped on it

45]JOE= for the ride

45]The rest of this argument is just emotional so I won't comment.JOE= ok,,, just where did I go off on an emotional tangent

45]It was because of fossils that the first evolutionist came into being- It is fossils that is their evidence of evolution-- It supposedly PROVES evolution is a reality--- That is,,, if you believe how they were all formed---- Over billions and billions of years----- Instead of one humongous flood------ Like the Geneses description------- of the Bible

First off, it's Genesis. NOT Geneses, just in case that wasn't a typo.

45]JOE= yes,,, and this is such an important detail,

45]JOE= that you had to point it out

45]JOE= sorry,,, but I was here to discuss facts, theories

45]JOE= and beliefs

45]Secondly, Evolution, well the theory of, came about because of Phylogeny, not the fossil record. Fossils are nice, we like them because they give us snap shots of the past, but even if we had NO fossils whatsoever, we could still show beyong a shadow of a doubt, that evolution had occured.

45]can anybody comment onand debate me on the info that I show to the group here,,,or,,,is this too advanced for this crowd

Well we'll see.

I cant believe that evolutionists have no defencefor these points that I make hereis this truly the destruction of the evolution fairy talemaybe you should call in some of the big gunsand have them try to answer to my arguments

I'm no "big gun", but I shall certainly have a try.JOE= thanks for writing me back, it’s apreciated

45]JOE= sorry for the length of this

45]<<<<< the words that have stumped the evolutionists >>>>>

I have a way of destroying evolution

Well, you haven't presented an argument yet, you have only flexed ya musclesJOE= yes ,,,,lol

45]Ok, lets do this systematic- Where everything is logged and categorized-- Following the whole evolutionary trail--- Of what it is based on---- Why + how they came up with this theory----- To show the population just what they say they are in on------ To see if they will choose to stay believing------- This total farce-------- Concocted by only a few--------- To fool the masses

Well, the theory of evolution was fairly well known before Darwins time, in fact, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote about evolution.

45]JOE= yes, I think man was coming up with some excuses

45]JOE= right from the very bigining,,,

45]JOE=,trying to side step the Authority of God

45]JOE= not wanting to admit that there was Someone watching

45]JOE= over everyone, seeing everything, that was going to

45]JOE= hold them accountable in the end

45]JOE= now do you see why man has always been hoping that

45]JOE= there was no one to answer to

45]JOE= for all of the bad deeds that they have committed

45]The problem was, there was no mechanism to drive evolution. All Darwin did was provide that mechanism, Natural Selection.

45]JOE= so,,, as soon as someone came up with a somewhat

45]JOE= believable concoction,,, all the rest of you hopped on it

45]JOE= for the ride

45]The rest of this argument is just emotional so I won't comment.JOE= ok,,, just where did I go off on an emotional tangent

45]It was because of fossils that the first evolutionist came into being- It is fossils that is their evidence of evolution-- It supposedly PROVES evolution is a reality--- That is,,, if you believe how they were all formed---- Over billions and billions of years----- Instead of one humongous flood------ Like the Geneses description------- of the Bible

First off, it's Genesis. NOT Geneses, just in case that wasn't a typo.

45]JOE= yes,,, and this is such an important detail,

45]JOE= that you had to point it out

45]JOE= sorry,,, but I was here to discuss facts, theories

45]JOE= and beliefs

45]Secondly, Evolution, well the theory of, came about because of Phylogeny, not the fossil record. Fossils are nice, we like them because they give us snap shots of the past, but even if we had NO fossils whatsoever, we could still show beyong a shadow of a doubt, that evolution had occured.

To whoever is editing my posts, can you please inform me why talking about transitional fossils is called "misleading" or "erroneous". If you are going to block evidence then in no way is this a forum to discuss evolution, only your presupposed idea that there is no evidence. That is dishonest and blinkered and if there is any integrity to this forum then you will put back what I have said and let the members of this forum offer a rebuttal if they so wish. Censoring is never the answer.

Thank you.

1- Did you re-read the forum rules (i.e. the rules you agreed to prior to being allowed to join this forum) prior to re-posting here?2- Are you "Complaining about the moderating" here?